Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAir Quality Advisory Board - Minutes - 08/27/2002MINUTES CITY OF FORT COLLINS AIR QUALITY ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING 281 N. COLLEGE AVE. August 27, 2002 For Reference: Eric Levine, Chair 229-5225 Eric Hamrick, Council Liaison 226-4824 Lucinda Smith, Staff Liaison 224-6085 Board Members Present Nancy York, Mandar Sunthankar, Linda Stanley, Katie Walters, Conrad Van Dyke, Everett Bacon, Eric Levine Board Members Absent Jim Dennison Staff Present Natural Resources Department: Lucinda Smith, Terry Klahn Guests Dr. Jerry Gallagher The meeting was called to order at 4:40. Smoking Ordinance • Levine: I read the article in the paper. I'm concerned about the way the process is going. The template the City is using is not a fair way of doing it. It goes at odds about information and education. I would like to see it done the way some ballot issues are done, with pros and cons. When we talk to people about the work safety issue regarding smoking in bars, almost everyone says they've never thought of it that way, and that smoking should be restricted in every workplace. Another issue would be if people knew the entire state of California is smoke free. • Sunthankar: Just the other day Superior completely banned smoking. • Levine: This survey doesn't mean very much. It doesn't serve the purpose of informed survey -taking. If the City is interested in education, this shows where education is needed. For community decision -making this is a very poor process. I hope they don't follow it again. • York: While out doing my job one fellow said that he'd heard that City Council has passed an ordinance banning smoking in all public places. There's some misinformation swirling about. • Sunthankar: The good news is 61% of the people favor a new ordinance, overall there is support. • Levine: It has been said that having a smoking section in a bar is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool. There's a lot of truth to that. Appoint a Board "Time -Keeper" 0 York: I volunteer to be the time -keeper. Air Quality Advisory Board August 27, 2002 Page 2 of 12 • Sunthankar: It's beyond time -keeping, they would also control the discussion. • Van Dyke: That's my opinion as well. If the responsibility is delegated, both should be delegated. • Sunthankar: We need someone to say express yourself and wrap this up. • York: I don't want to be that time -keeper. • Walters: I thought that was the chair's responsibility. Many times the chair or president has no opinion, they're to make sure the discussion goes on track and on time. I know we need a time -keeper, but at the same time, it's the chair's responsibility. • Sunthankar: When the chair cannot control his own time we have a problem. • Bacon: It's fine for the chair to have opinions, but we need balance. We need better management for people who talk for long amounts of time on every single item. • York: Is there a prohibition against anyone speaking out? • Sunthankar: Some people express in great detail, and some don't. • Walters: I think what every single member needs to do is remember to pay attention to what people are saying. Things get said over and over. Everyone has an opinion and wants to be heard, but we don't necessarily need to repeat things. Someone needs to monitor the discussion, keep things going. • Sunthankar: There needs to be an allowance for everyone to express ideas. • Smith: It seems some board members are interested in having the time -keeper have a broader role. • Levine: From what I've heard this is going beyond time -keeping. This should be an agenda item for a retreat. Van Dyke made the following motion: Move that we accept the agenda description of a time keeper, and Nancy York volunteering for it. The motion was seconded by Sunthankar, and unanimously approved (6-0). Linda Stanley arrived immediately following the vote. Transportation Ballot Issue Levine said this is a continuation of last months discussion, with the possibility of a recommendation to Council. Smith provided a brief summary of what the board heard last month. She said that on August 20, Council voted 6-1 on first reading to adopt a resolution. Second reading is September 3. There's still an opportunity for the Board to make a recommendation regarding this. Included in the packets were excerpts of correspondence from the Transportation Board. Their concern was the increase in funding was not enough. They felt there should be a two percent excise tax. However, in the draft minutes from July 17, at the end it says the board agreed they do support the ballot items regardless of if they're bundled or not. The one issue still pending is whether to bundle the items. As far as I know that decision has not been made. • Sunthankar: How much will the '/< cent tax raise? • Smith: Six to seven million a year. The one percent excise tax will raise approximately two million a year. • Levine: It's based on a little over half the cost of the sale price. Air Quality Advisory Board August 27, 2002 Page 3 of 12 • Sunthankar: Is it for new buildings? • Smith: It will not apply to affordable housing or new home additions. • York: Unless you put up a separate structure. • Stanley: I don't think we should make any recommendation and I'm excusing myself from this discussion completely. • Smith: It appears the Transportation Board has not sent a formal motion. • Levine: On May 161h they had a vote they would like to see a two percent excise tax. • Smith: That may have been their last official correspondence. • Sunthankar: Is this something the AQAB should be discussing? • Levine: Only if we believe transportation affects air quality. • Smith: I think this falls in your prerogative if you wish to make a motion. • Walters: I don't know that we need to make any adjustments to the Transportation Board suggestions. Although this will increase funding for roads it also increases funding for bike paths, and pedestrian things. It's fair to say they're making an effort to get people to use alternative transportation, as well as improve the roads. I agree with the Transportation Board. • York: It's a done deal anyhow. We could recommend the two taxes be married. In response to reading the Transportation Board minutes I started writing a motion. My motion was about air quality, and the fact that in the outdoor air quality survey, 33% of the people said they, or someone in their household was suffering from respiratory disease. More and more we know that air quality from fossil fuel driven vehicles contributes to premature death, and increased hospitalization. The motion I want us to consider would be a reconsideration of transportation. Regional governments are pursuing a path that was set a long time ago. Sales taxes are down, we're in an economy that's struggling. We know the oil supply is politically vulnerable. I would like us to encourage a re-evaluation of the plan. I don't mean a motion for the tax. I would like a profound motion, bring in as many of the facts as we can. We should advocate for clean transit, especially on the busiest streets, from a health and economic perspective. • Walters: They've had this mentality for so long it will take a lot to change it. I'm a pessimist when it comes to environmental stuff. We have a "use up everything" mindset. Every little bit we get I'm very happy with. There are some funds allocated to bike paths. I don't know if telling them to reevaluate the transportation plan is something we need to do right now. Maybe it's something to put on the agenda for the future. • Sunthankar: What is the intended discussion. • York: Do we want to make a recommendation on the tax? • Bacon: And packaging, do you bundle or not? I don't see that as an air quality issue. • Levine: I see this entire discussion as an air quality issue, if the tax is needed or not appropriate. Bundling will have something to do with pass/fail. • Bacon: Does anyone have a good feel. I haven't heard concerns if packaging is a good idea or not. Staff seems to be adverse because they tried it last time. If staff is correct, then don't bundle. • Sunthankar: That's a political issue to be discussed by the Transportation Board. • Van Dyke: Can we endorse, or not endorse, and getaway from if it's bundled? • Walters: We could say we trust the Transportation Board is making the correct decision about the needs of Fort Collins. Air Quality Advisory Board August 27, 2002 Page 4 of 12 • Bacon: Some say, with bundling you could lose both, others say you bring the other up and win both. It's not clear to me. • Levine: I think it's in our purview. • York: I personally don't favor the expansion of roads, and that is based on air quality. I don't particularly like this tax. When you speak about bundling on the transportation initiative that failed, they had transit and timing lights. I don't believe that in 1997 the Mason Street Corridor stood alone. I would like to send a recommendation that they reevaluate their whole transportation plan. Air quality is not a big player in our transportation planing. It's just not there. I think it's our charge, if we care, to step up to the plate and be more passionate. We should set ourselves down to give them a recommendation that is fact -based, and calls for a total reevaluation of the Transportation Master Plan, not more road widening. • Sunthankar: I don't agree. If you don't widen the roads, air pollution will get worse. • York: I don't know if it's a conclusive study, the one about the children who live with 1500 feet of a road carrying 20,000. • Bacon: Is that study available to us? • Van Dyke: I can provide it, and the support documents. It was a study in the Netherlands in high commuter areas. • Sunthankar: By not widening the roads, how are you going to prevent that? • York: Yesterday on NPR was a story about school buses being diesel powered. The kids at the back of the bus get bigger doses. They're coming up with more and more information, and now you're hearing about it. It could be that such a recommendation that I'm suggesting could be timely. • Walters: I agree with what Nancy is suggesting. The question is how are we going to accomplish it. • Sunthankar: How are we going to reduce pollution by not widening the roads? • York: Clean transit would contribute to an efficient and effective transit system. From an economic standpoint one lane mile of new roads cost two to seventeen million dollars. Every land mile of road requires $17,000 of maintenance per year. This tax will only provide 37.5 percent of our transportation needs. They have a grand plan of wide roads. I went to a workshop on walkable communities. This guy talked about narrowing the lanes and opening up intersections, and mobility was enhanced. • Bacon: They're called road diets. Was that Dan Burton? He's quick to point out it's not going to work on every road. But there are certain applications that work. • Walters: We need to figure out what we want to do. What are our options at this point? • Bacon: It's already passed on first reading. I don't see the need for a motion. I agree with statements that we need to think about a long range solution, and that we don't like the long range plan. We need to establish good long range direction. Then it's easier to come in and say, "We don't like this because you're not following the plan". What do we want our city to look like? When I look at this package I see nice projects. These road monies include a lot of bike/ped applications. The buses ride on those streets. If we don't widen them there will be more traffic delay. Intersection improvements will have an overall benefit to air quality. • York: You understand that 60-80% of the funding for the Mason Street Corridor is coming from the feds. Mr. Allard is cool about the Mason Street Corridor because it doesn't allow cars. He hasn't been a good advocate for getting those funds. If we don't get the funds that project will not be built in the next many years. Air Quality Advisory Board August 27, 2002 Page 5 of 12 • Bacon: The best thing we can do is get this package passed. • Levine: What I've seen with this package is there's more sales tax, and benefits are going down. We're paying more and getting less. An important question is fairness, who is paying for the City's growth, and the City is growing. Where's the cause and effect. Does this amount to planning for more growth? To some extent it has to. The growth will continue to come, the question of fairness is important. Ron did mention they were looking at another fee system that would take into account not just the street over -sizing fee. We can send an important message, look at the entire effect of growth on the City's transportation. Land use needs to be right or the transportation system isn't going to work. That's one of the messages we need to keep sending. • Bacon: Will we be briefed on the City Plan update sometime? • Smith: Yes, and the Transportation Master Plan update could coincide. We can find out more about the timing. The Transportation Board has an hour on the master plan in August. I'll follow up and make sure the AQAB, if you wish to, will have the opportunity to follow the lengthy process as the project is going along. • Levine: A lot of times we're out of the loop for months, or forever. If we're going to be in the loop I wouldn't mind being a month behind the Transportation Board so we benefit from them. They're the experts, the AQAB may not have the time to go to the level of detail as the Transportation Board. • Bacon: I like what you say about land use and transportation. I know you're no growth/no roads, but when we get to the Transportation Master Plan and City Plan, what are some of the repercussions. It's not that I have strong differences with some of those ideals. But, what I've been reading is anti -sprawl is not working in a lot of communities. Housing prices are sky high, policemen, librarians, schoolteachers, and others can't afford to live there. I want to know the whole story before I step through that threshold. It's appropriate to look at in the long range planning process, but we should keep an eye on the negative impacts. • Levine: I'm not a no-growther, I would probably believe aliens from Mars are on Area 53 if I were. That's not realistic. However, we've been growing at phenomenal rates that aren't sustainable. The planning process can't keep up with this kind of growth rate. I do believe growth beyond a certain rate is unhealthy. A lot of time pro growth folks feel no limits should be placed, just go with what the market is at the time, and make your money. I have a more community perspective. I am a citizen here. I'm looking for some quality of life. I'm not getting the same as what I was getting when I came and put my stakes here. I concerned about those kinds of things. • Bacon: I share those concerns, I'm a smart growth proponent. • York: This would be a good discussion for a retreat. • Levine: We do need a retreat, but we need some of the information before the retreat. • York: At our retreat maybe we could come up with a plan that impacts transportation planning, maybe a meeting with the Transportation Board. I'm for letting this tax thing go without our words of wisdom. Mandar Sunthankar left at 6:45 p.m. Minutes With the following changes, the minutes of the July 30, 2002 were unanimously approved. Page 1, 0 Paragraph, Last sentence: change "transit" to "transportation" Page 4, 2"d bullet: Change Levien to Levine. Air Quality Advisory Board August 27, 2002 Page 6 of 12 Levine said he didn't want to request any changes or additions but that in the section on the Transportation issue on page 2 some of his very important points were left out. He said reading the minutes, it's kind of misleading. Some of the points have not really been captured in the minutes. People reading these minutes would not have the real benefit of the point/counterpoint that went on. He added that discussion was of the street oversizing fees, but I went into the entire transportation system. Review Action Log Zoe asked if we could set up the AQ Survey Review Subcommittee meeting tonight. Some people have gotten back to her, and some haven't. The time of the subcommittee meeting will be set after the regular meeting. Wood Smoke Smith said the main focus of this discussion is to talk about the possibility of an ordinance to remove non -certified wood burning units when a home is sold. The wood smoke committee thought it was good to look into mandatory removal but couldn't reach a recommendation because they were missing information. We looked at three particular options. One is reducing opacity. Staff is still committed to bringing that to Council. It's not scheduled for Council but it is on the unscheduled portion of the Six -Month Planning Calendar. We have a meeting with Greg Byrne next Thursday to talk about that item. Also, the voluntary no burn program. That's something we can implement without Council action. The last thing is the focus of our talk today. The action plan reminds the public that this issue was considered in the mid-90's. The AQAB had a committee to look at this issue. The board made a recommendation, with a split vote, to not implement a mandatory program at that time. The mandate was to look at it again. The Point of Sale ordinance was reviewed again in 1998, and that was again the finding. However the issue didn't drop, and we're mandated to look at the issue again now as we update the action plan. Smith reviewed a graph based on estimates of wood smoke emissions from survey data. In general you can see that emissions are dropping off. The other thing that makes up the perspective is what do people think about wood smoke. We've asked that question in our survey for several years. Right now about 10% of the citizens feel that the wood smoke in their neighborhoods is too much or unacceptable, while 90% feel that it's acceptable. We feel that tightening the opacity will give us a tool to deal with those neighborhood level problems. It's not a guarantee. • York: I would suppose that homes in the south part of town probably don't have as many wood stoves. • Smith: It's true that new homes built after 1981 are not allowed to have non -certified wood burning units, but they can still have certified wood burning units. We did map the complaints to the extent possible, it's not complete because we didn't have addresses for everyone. I can share that with you if you're interested. • York: I'm not confident in this 10%. • Smith: After talking about removal at POS, the things we didn't know, but needed to know are: 1) what would the cost of removal be, 2) what kinds of subsidy options are available, 3) how do other communities handle fireplaces, and 4) can we get emissions estimates from the non -certified units. I've gotten some of that information. The cheapest cost estimate for Air Quality Advisory Board August 27, 2002 Page 7 of 12 removal was $100. The highest was on the order of $2000. It's not easy to get a good average number. Everyone who used the ZILCH loan either put in a certified unit gas or certified wood stove. When asked about removing fireplaces, people asked how that could be done. In discussions with people in the industry it appears that removing a fireplace is not practical. They can be rendered inoperable. I haven't found a community that requires sealing a fireplace for air quality purposes. As far as replacing non —certified units with a certified wood -burning unit, in reviewing the ZILCH loans there were only four, the average cost was $1,944. Many more people removed non -certified units and upgraded to a gas unit. The average cost for that was $2,700. • Smith: The other thing is, what kind of emissions come from these units. We were able to estimate about 13,500 fireplaces in homes. Of those users the average amount of wood burned was .2 cords. Then we estimated that there are about 7,000 non -certified wood stoves and inserts, and relatively few certified stoves. Based on those people we got an average amount of wood burned. The non -certified stove and insert users burned an average of %2 a cord of wood. Then we took the emission factors for CO, fireplaces are highest, then non - certified, and drops to certified stoves. If anyone wants the details I'd be happy to share them with you. • Smith: I did make an effort to do a cost/benefit analysis. • Levine: We need to remember this is only for CO. The City is very interested in CO because of redesignation. Air quality folks are interested in particulates. With the non -certified stoves the combustion temperature is not high. • Smith: I haven't seen emission factors for voc's, but I could probably find it. • Van Dyke: Environmental Health Perspectives, 1999. • Levine: As far as certified wood stoves, and the particulates, the two types are catalytic and dual combustion chambers. The dual chamber doesn't need as much maintenance. • Smith: We don't have any survey data that asks people to differentiate between those types of units. • Van Dyke: American Hearth Products Association. There were big studies in Northern California, and one in Michigan. • Smith: A couple of questions have been raised about the cost/benefit analysis. Just for frame of reference, the lawn mower rebate program the first year was quite cost effective. The engine block heater wasn't nearly as cost effective. Simply looking at this, it suggests that it is not highly cost effective to do this. • Levine: Again, this is just for CO. • Smith: It sounds like you want information on PM and VOC's as well. • Bacon: Do you have any way of knowing how low income and minority folks are impacted by this? I would be more concerned about a $2000 to $3000 hit on one of those homes than I would be on a $500,000 home. • Smith: We could cross -tab the survey data to look at owners of non -certified stoves with income level. • Van Dyke: From most of the data I've seen it seems to be the middle income folks doing the trade out, not the high and low end homes. • Bacon: Do you have a laundry list of CO cost benefits? • Smith: The EPA has whole list. I'll find those. • Smith: Grand Junction has a removal program. They did it in part to meet broad air quality goals. The ordinance requires removal of non certified stoves, or upgrades to gas. They do Air Quality Advisory Board August 27, 2002 Page 8 of 12 give exemptions if it's the sole source of heat, or for low income citizens. They also do provide financial assistance. It's enforced through the building inspector. Fruita has a program, but not a mandatory program. They have a replacement incentive fund. These are examples of what's being done. I had hoped to be able to come and tell you what staffs recommendation is, but we're not there yet. We're going to further explore finding incentives. We thought of working with Platte River Power. My own opinion is that this may not be the most cost effective thing we can do to improve air quality. We're going to go ahead with the tighter opacity. • Stanley: What does tighter opacity mean? • Levine: How is that enforced? • Smith: There's one trained reader in the county for day time readings. It's a municipal code and there's a fine. If they violate it, city staff would see if they have a non -certified unit. If it's not certified they would be required to remove it. The enforcement is a challenge. We're hoping to work with Health and Safety code enforcement. • Hentschel: I checked into Boulder's program and they have their community service officers do it. They do go out at night. • Levine: I would be in favor of extending this discussion. • Smith: I had hoped to be able to bring something concrete for you to react to. We will come back with ordinance language for opacity standards, possibly within a month. Regarding mandatory removal at point of sale the board can make a recommendation but it wouldn't be in response to a staff recommendation because we're still working on it. • Stanley: When you come back, I'd like to know more about the health benefits of doing this. It seems that wood smoke can trigger asthma attaches, or other respiratory ailments. It seems there can be severe consequences of wood smoke. In any cost benefit analysis you would want to include this. • Smith: I have a feeling this data will not be available. We don't have local data on asthma related doctor visits. There's a surprising lack of information. • Hentschel: I think there's some information the American Lung Association has put out. • Levine: I've been looking at particulate information and health effects for years. There's an incredible amount of information out there. If you can say what the contribution of a certain stationary source is to the particulate in the City, then the link is there. • Levine: What strikes me the most is the amount of time the City spends studying and restudying little problems, not before taking action, because I haven't seen action taken yet on a number of very important issues. I was on the board in 1995 when this was being discussed regularly, and 1996 and 1997. It hasn't been discussed for some years. Nancy was on the board early on as well. This is a heavy issue that has been discussed for a number of years. What I'm noticing is Sand Point, Grand Point, Fruita, Bend, you said they have no actual air quality estimates, yet they went ahead, some of them did, and did it. They don't have the information. You'll never have enough information. There has to be a point where you make your decision one way or the other, and go ahead and do it. • Bacon: Is the Council slated to consider this? • Smith: This is not on the council agenda yet. They way it would work is if the AQAB or staff wanted to bring something to Council it would be scheduled on their agenda. Whereas the other item on opacity is not scheduled yet, but I think probably in two weeks it will be scheduled. Air Quality Advisory Board August 27, 2002 Page 9 of 12 Stanley: I think one of the things is, these numbers don't look that good. Before going to Council, whatever our recommendation, in order to get them to go along with it, the numbers are going to have to be more telling. But I think they would be, I know a lot of people get very negatively affected during the winter by wood smoke, respiratory problems and asthma attacks. Very acute, serious conditions. I know someone who died from an asthma attack. Can you say for sure it was wood smoke, no, but it was a very high pollution day. Therefore I think the cost/benefit analysis would be there. Smith: This isn't complete at all, it doesn't include external factors. I almost wonder if it is instructive or not, to have that estimate as it is now. One issue is, this would allow someone to install a certified wood stove, that could be operated poorly and cause serious emissions that would bother someone. That's the challenge, figuring out what's going to be most effective. I don't know if you can give me a sense if you're interested in this, or supportive of it. Levine: I was thinking of that as well. Smith: Realtors would say there is benefit to having the ambiance of having some type of wood unit. I don't think there are a lot of places where people take out a unit and don't replace it. I'll try to find out more information • Levine: I guess one of the issues that's been important to me as far as certified and un- certified units is that it's been illegal for decades now to purchase a non -certified wood stove. It can not be purchased, it can not be legally sold. It can not be retailed period, it's illegal. We're grandfathering these rights to new homeowners. I understand the old homeowners have the right to use their non -certified unit in their home forever, as long as they are there. But I don't understand why, if there's a non- certified unit in the home that this homeowner is granted this special right that no one else is allowed to get. You can't buy a new home and get that special right. It's a special right that we're transferring. That doesn't seem fair, and from an air quality standpoint it's not good at all, and doesn't begin to solve the problem. I look at it as a transferable right to pollute the air that is only given to certain folks who happen to buy one of those homes. • Smith: I understand that perspective. • Levine: It's not across the board, as far as a fairness issue. • Bacon: You give those same rights to people who chose to drive old cars too. • Stanely: But you have to get your car an emission test. Or do you mean cars that are 25 years old? That's a loophole that should be closed too. Two wrongs don't make a right. • Levine: The old car will be off the road, or used very little, in five years. These stoves can last for a hundred years. • Smtih: It sounds like a majority of the board present is very interested in pursuing this. We've identified some more information needs. Assuming I can get to a point where I have a staff recommendation, I'll come back in September with a staff recommendation on this. It may be different than the Board's, but at least you'll have something to react to. Does that sound ok? • Levine: One thing about wood stoves, certified stoves, once it's done, it's done. For the most part you'll be done with the issue. Where as with other problems, such as radon, the problem continues to get worse. This problem, if it's addressed in an effectatious manner, whatever that manner is, it will be removed once and for all. • Smith: Thanks for your time. Air Quality Advisory Board August 27, 2002 Page 10 of 12 I/M Feasibility Smith said we have Dr. Jerry Gallagher here tonight to make the presentation. He's the consultant hired by the City to implement the I/M feasibility study. • Levine: Could this board have complete copies of what was submitted to the AQCC? • Smith: Yes, what was submitted was the written hearing statement. • Levine: When this deal (in the non -enforceable part of Fort Collins' CO Maintenance Plan that the state would extend the current I/M program until an effective alternative could be found or it was no longer practical) was cooked we were told and hopeful, and we didn't say anything but basically rolled over so as not to rock the boat with the repressive Air Quality Control Commission and an equally repressive State government, that we would be allowed to continue to our present I/M program, or at least continue it for a lengthy time. How many members of the AQCC expressed reservations? • Smith: Two. That was off the record. • Levine: That doesn't seem right. It's probably not the first action they've taken that I would disapprove of. • Smith: It wasn't an action, it was an expression of their opinion. • Levine: Here we are, mere weeks away from that, and here we are getting presentations already on alternatives to our existing programs. • Smith: I don't quite understand what your concern is. • Levine: My concern is we seem to be rushing ahead to get rid of our present I/M program. We were hoping to keep it, because it was a more effective means than other programs. • Smith: I wasn't hoping to keep it. I don't think staff was hoping to keep it. We were hoping to keep it till there was something else. The two speed idle test is absolutely better than no test, and it does bring about air quality benefits, but it's becoming outdated with the vehicles that are on the road now. I don't think it is staff s view that the two speed idle test is something we want to hold onto. • Stanley: You're saying that hopefully there's something better. • Smith: I feel certain there's something better. Gallagher said we've just sort of scratched the surface of this project, and that we're looking at the feasibility of implementing a non -SIP I/M program. He said there are three big issues; 1) this is a new paradigm, we have a clean sheet of paper; (2) there are no federal guidelines, and 3) it could be voluntary or it could be mandatory. He said the study is based on the following principles: - Accurately identify vehicles with excess emissions - High percentage coverage of the fleet - Effective repairs - Low false fail rate - Convenient to the public - Be cost effective There are six major components: 1. Base line analysis 2. Alternative approaches 3. Motorist compliance 4. Comparative study 5. Reporting/presentation 6. Detail description Air Quality Advisory Board August 27, 2002 Page 11 of 12 • Bacon: On the voluntary are you talking about the user, the motorist, or are you talking about the City? • Gallagher: You would be talking about a City program, but it would be voluntary for the motorist to participate. You would not be denied registration like you are now. • Smith: Once we have a small and reasonable set of options, we want to find out what the public in Fort Collins thinks, because that will be part of how we present it to City Council. • Bacon: Are there potential fuel technology changes that could be added to the list? • Gallagher: We've eliminated fuel for a couple of reasons. There are concerns about the federal commerce act. • Smith: This is more of a tailpipe type evaluation. • Levine: You've indicated that maybe the OBD technology may make what we're doing now, not even necessary. What kind of time frame are we looking at? • Gallagher: The OBD was a little ahead of it's time in 1996 and 1997. • Levine: When will Detroit have it down so well that we'll have the testing for every cars built into our cars? • Gallagher: The only thing close is the OBD III technology. There are about 250 vehicles in California right now. That technology is basically only a couple years away. California is looking at it as a replacement for going to a gas station. They're looking at some form of transponder. That's probably the next technology. • Levine: Within the next six years how much cleaner will the cars coming out of Detroit be? • Gallagher: I'm of the opinion it's not the number, but how durable the car is. You're going to see the fleet itself will maintain a level much lower than we anticipated. The technology wont be the "magic number", but the durability. • Levine: Why is that happening? • Gallagher: Because of OBD. The warranty used to be for 50,000 miles, but Congress changed it. Now it's the life of vehicle. That's what drove the technology. CO Site Status Smith said the site has been approved. It's been through Council. We've received the permit and construction is beginning. Agenda Planning Review Council six-month planning calendar • September 24 — Second Hand Smoke Ordinance Levine: Is that the same date as our meeting? Smith: Yes. Does the board want to spend part of the meeting watching the meeting? Stanley: There's no presence unless Eric has been invited to sit at the table. Levine: At the last study session I spoke with the mayor pro-tem and was invited to sit at the table. That invitation was revoked by the Mayor. He said it was because I was running for a council seat. I said that's fine, we have many members, I'm sure one of them would be glad to sit in. He said no, the AQAB has already expressed an opinion, and we don't want any biased opinions sitting at the table with staff. Stanley: I think someone should be at the table. Levine: It's a retreat from advocacy, and being left behind in the dust. I think smoking is one where we could be left behind in the dust. Air Quality Advisory Board August 27, 2002 Page 12 of 12 • Walters: I wanted to ask about the retreat. Do we have anything closer to what might be a date? • Smith: A couple things. Staff would like to suggest that the retreat be done in stages. The "meaty" part, the part talking about the issues be done first, and the organizational part, process things, happen later, maybe even a couple months later. The October 12 time period is something we're looking at. • Walters: Can we start working on the date? • Smith: We'll have to do it by email. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. ACTION LIST — from August 27, 2002 meeting ACTION ITEM WHO BY... DONE 1. Provide a copy of the study on health impacts Conrad Sept. 6 of living close to highways. 2. Determine timing and schedule for AQAB Lucinda Sept. 16 involvement in Transportation Master Plan update, following T-Board discussions. 3. Include Fort Collins CO redesignation Brian Sept. 16 hearing statement in next packet. 4. Initiate e-mail conversation about timing for Lucinda Sept. 3 Fall Board work session. 5. Ask Cheryl Asmus for cross -tab on non- Lucinda I Sept. 3 I r certified stove owners and income.